Where would humanity be without our mild delusion? Many of the technologies we take for granted, from the light bulb to iPhones, would cease to exist without relentless resolve. Stephen King, rejected dozens of times, persisted and became one of the world’s top-selling authors. Any entrepreneur maintains a bit of in the face of the staggering […]
Where would humanity be without our mild delusion? Many of the technologies we take for granted, from the light bulb to iPhones, would cease to exist without relentless resolve. Stephen King, rejected dozens of times, persisted and became one of the world’s top-selling authors. Any entrepreneur maintains a bit of in the face of the staggering […]
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller kept up his attacks on birthright citizenship with a far-fetched hypothetical on Friday, and critics lined up to ridicule it.Days after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in a 6-3 ruling that struck down President Donald Trump's executive order, Miller posted on X that if you believe a foreign government could sail a hospital ship to the edge of US waters, "deliver a hundred babies to foreign moms, then promptly sail back," and that each child "is American for life, you don't believe in nationhood at all." The rant echoed the birth-tourism case he made on Fox News, where he floated a "hard look" at barring pregnant women from the country.Miller's post predictably led to quick backlash. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger asked sarcastically, "What about our hospital ship that we sent to Greenland? It happened right?" Bulwark journalist Sam Stein quipped, "Well. When you put it that way." Internet personality Damin Toell pointed out that under the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent, and still after this week's ruling, babies born aboard foreign government ships in US waters are already exempt from birthright citizenship.Others flipped Miller's logic back on him.National security journalist Marcy Wheeler called his "perverted little fantasy" no more real "than it was for the century and a half since birthright citizenship was codified." Academic Alonso Gurmendi argued that "any citizenship rule can be made to sound absurd like this." And journalist Zaid Jilani went furthest, sarcastically asking: "What if a mom catapults over the US Mexico border and from 500 feet in the air pops a baby out, ties a parachute to it and lets it fall gently to the ground. Does that baby deserve citizenship, lib?"The administration has vowed to keep fighting, though some analysts say the ruling nearly went the other way. Independent estimates put actual birth tourism at a tiny fraction of U.S. births.
A crowd of people gathered at the Great American State Fair on Thursday stopped to gaze up at the sky as several fighter jets streaked over the National Mall. Blake Boggs crouched down to his young son’s stroller and pointed up. “You don’t get to see the Thunderbirds anywhere,” he told The Hill. Despite the…
American citizenship has been defined, officially, by one’s birthplace. It must also include one’s sense of belonging. This week’s Supreme Court ruling has answered, at least for now, the constitutional question: Who qualifies for citizenship under the law? But a more difficult question remains: What does citizenship require once it is conferred? Over time, American […]
President Donald Trump said he sees the need for some standards on artificial intelligence technology, but wants to avoid burdensome restrictions that may hamper American companies competing with China.
As President Donald Trump rages over his party’s inability to pass his much-demanded SAVE America Act, Politico reports that congressional Republicans have a “dirty little secret”: many of them don’t want to pass it at all. According to insiders, the “inconvenient truth” is that “it can’t even pass the House — at least not the version Trump is pushing.”According to Politico, “Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged as much this week, appearing to concede he does not have the votes to move forward with a drastic crackdown on mailed ballots that Trump has repeatedly demanded this year.” Instead, GOP House leaders are reverting to an older version of the bill that focuses on proof of citizenship while otherwise letting states more or less run elections as they please. “We all do” want to give Trump what he wants, said Johnson, but a ban on mail-in ballots “is a very difficult thing to regulate at the federal level, because different states do it differently.” “I’m going to do everything I can with the vote tallies that we have,” he added.Hardline conservatives have pushed for an expanded version of the bill, which in addition to the mailed ballot ban would include Trump’s demand for provisions banning transgender people from playing women’s sports, as well as a prohibition on gender-affirming surgery for minors. But Johnson has continued to press a narrower version he thinks is more likely to pass.As Politico explains, “The lack of widespread GOP support for upending the voting systems in states like Arizona, Florida and Alaska is an open secret on Capitol Hill, where many Republicans credit mailed ballots with helping them win tight races.”“Listen, absentee ballots are not a bad thing historically as long as you put some kind of structure on it,” said Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV). “Just have some commonsensical safeguards for when it has to be postmarked by.” Last week, after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s attempt to limit mail-in ballots via executive order, Amodei said he was happy with the outcome, asserting, “It says mail-in voting in and of itself is not evil. There ought to be some mechanism for you to do that.”Outspoken SAVE Act supporter Representative Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) wants the bill to pass in some form, but worries how a ban on mail-in ballots would affect states with limited polling places, saying, “We’re a rural state. I understand the concerns about mail-in voting… but I think the solution that I’m in favor of is restricting it and creating these commonsense reforms for it.” Johnson seconded her concerns about rural voters, admitting that in some states it can be “very difficult to get to a ballot box, and so they use mail-in ballots very effectively, and I think securely, and that’s something that has to be contended with.”Unsurprisingly, he tailored his criticism of mail-in ballots to target a few states in particular, claiming, “There are other states that do it well, and without a problem. Our concerns are with the handful, five or six blue states, who abuse this, and California is the avatar for this, because it is so ridiculous.”Critics of the president’s attacks on mail-in voting and his demands for other electoral restrictions argue that the SAVE Act will disenfranchise millions of voters. What’s more, as a number of GOP insiders have pointed out, the bill could backfire for Republicans, as conservative voters are less likely to have the appropriate ID and more likely to depend on mail-in ballots.
